War often comes as a failure of politics; but politics is often dependent on circumstances beyond the control of politicians. Our Old Testament reading throws us straight into the court politics at the end of the reign of King David. His currently oldest son Adonijah seems not to have remembered the fate of another son, Absolom who had claimed the throne for himself some years before. It is unclear whether David in his old age is capable of managing the situation. The court seems to be buzzing with people muttering in corners. Nathan the prophet talks to Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon, who is only tenth in line to the throne. Bathsheba talks to David, David talks to Nathan the prophet, then to Bathsheba again and then David gives an order to Nathan, Zadok the priest and Benaiah a mercenary general in charge of his elite troups. Solomon is to be anointed king. Has David been manipulated, has he intended this all along, does he simply prefer one son to all the others, does he feel that Solomon will make a more capable ruler? It is an early example of the complexity of Middle Eastern Politics.
The Book of Revelation is fraught with a different kind of politics. In the Greco-Roman world of Asia minor in which it was written, the questions people were really interested in varied considerably; those of a more philosophical bent would want to know about the reality lying behind the appearance of the physical world; others would prefer to know what happened to the soul after death and yet others, what the stars have to tell us about the fixed pattern of history. Christians raised against a background of Jewish thought, wanted to know what would happen next. They believed that the death and resurrection of Jesus had initiated that period in which God would bring about the created order which had been his ultimate intention all along. The book of Revelation is nothing but a vision of the ultimate fate of the world. And in this context the author and his readers share with Jesus in ‘the tribulation and the kingdom and patient endurance.’
Tribulation is a Biblical word for what we are also all currently sharing in – financial and moral tribulation which are all part of the uncertain relation between politics, the market place, and the well being of human society. St Paul’s cathedral runs an Institute, the purpose of which is to build bridges with the city of London in all its commercial and political aspects. Recently it commissioned some research into the views of 515 people working in the city’s financial houses, the publication of which was delayed by the campsite which appeared outside the great west doors. That report has now been published and it reveals a certain confusion on the part of those who work in the city.
2 in 3 professionals working in the financial sector agreed that salaries and bonuses are a far more important motivation than enjoyment of the work. On the other hand they tend to think that bankers, stock brokers, chief executives and bond traders are paid too much. They also feel that the deregulation of the markets results in less ethical behavior. However, many of them have a poor level of knowledge about when deregulation happened, how much deregulation there is and what the stock exchange motto is. 75% agree that there is too great a gap between rich or poor, though the majority believe that their own companies maintain high ethical standards that are in line with their own moral values. They also believe that Corporate Social Responsibility is a good thing and should be discussed and incentivised. Just over half of them think that companies should invest directly in deprived communities.
Questions about religious faith revealed that 41% believe in God but 47% say they never attend worship except on special occasions. 76% do not agree that the city needs to listen more to the guidance of the church; so even those who think of themselves as believers do not think that Christianity has anything relevant to say about money and the market place. It would seem that many in the financial services industry do not see the church as a place where serious ethical debate can happen. Is that because the church is seen as largely illiterate when it comes to questions of finance? Yet, as Canon Giles Frazer has pointed out ‘money is the number one moral issue in the Bible.’ Money is seen as far more dangerous to the development of spiritual and moral wisdom than any of the other issues that seem to be of concern to the Anglican communion at the moment.
Part of our problem lies in the fact that money is now felt to be the sphere of experts with economic theories that are beyond the grasp of most of the people who use it. And yet ‘economics’ in the words of Archbishop Rowan simply means housekeeping. Economic theory ought primarily to be about the building of a stable and sustainable environment for all the citizens of the world to live in. Economics should be about living within our means, not taking risks with other people’s money when there is no penalty for failure. Economics should be about the ways in which the market place can work for the common good, and protect the most vulnerable. Economics should be about locating the most moral forms of capitalism.
This may seem a long way from the political intrigues of the court of King David, or the dramatic visions of the book of Revelation. And yet both texts are concerned with the future of communities. And the collapse of communities is – as the prophets endlessly proclaimed – brought about by the increasing gap between rich and poor and by the blindness of the rich to the needs of their neighbours. And war between communities is more often than not brought about by factors which seem to threaten the commercial life and financial growth of nations. Hence the formation of the European community as a common market to end all wars.
Money is a basis of exchange and is therefore a symbol of community, because exchange is the basis of community, living by and from each other. To a large extent, as Giles Fraser has pointed out, this basic human experience of exchange has been fatally obscured by the fact that trading is now mediated by technology without direct human contact. And in such circumstances it is perhaps the role of the church to keep alive the face of the other. Who is most affected by our current financial tribulation; whose lives are most put at risk; whose wealth enables them to remain unaffected and impervious to this tribulation? In the midst of the troubles at St Paul’s we should be grateful that they remain a centre for the discussion of these issues. For it is in such discussions that we get closer to the kingdom, it is in speaking for the silent majority of the poor, it is in making known the face of the other, that we share with Jesus in ‘the tribulation and the kingdom and patient endurance.’ Amen.